Unsustainable number of starts at Sprimger oww

[MuddyWaters]

Double post..somehow

[MuddyWaters]

The world is a big place.

I am glad some of the best places in my neck of the woods are not controlled like the JMT and western national parks.

And conversely, I am glad that a very few unequalled, irreplaceable areas were set aside by wise leaders, and for the most part protected.

What easterners think are their forests today, are nothing but a collection of immature saplings managed for the timber industry. It takes hundreds of years to grow a real tree.

[Des]

The "public" responds to that kind of "deterrance" to vandalism and damage, and, absence of trash, and, fresh "tp" in the privys.

Connie, I wholeheartedly agree that in most instances all that is needed is someone to be present to deter offenders. I hope I couldn't come off as implying that I want some form of brutish 'authority' to enforce compliance. I have seen caretakers have to lecture some miscreants a couple times, but that is the rarity.


I have not been in Georgia during the height of the bubble, having started earlier than most, but, I have been in the Whites and Greens in heavy use season and believe that caretakers are a good step. Certainly if we want to educate new hikers and combat things like overflowing privies and littering it seems like a reasonable approach while still allowing free access. We may not be able to enforce that people go on a backpacking trip before they attempt the AT, but it can't hurt to help guide them in that first step if they do come uneducated.

[jj2044]

Med2, What I would do wouldn't be very popular. I would do away with all the rat infested Shelters, that would make about 10-15% of the population stop trying, you know the idiots who don't carry any kind of shelter with them and expect you to either set up your tent or fit another in an already full shelter....... the problem with the AT is the support system, its the best thing about it and the worst thing at the same time... the AT is great for people who want to party more then hike, because every 2 to 3 days there is a town, the support system enables POS's to be POS's and those people are not good for the trail !! ................ and next I would, while I HATE saying it, some kind of permit system run by the ATC or 1 overseeing group. it would be a first sign up, first serve. when you signed up, you picked a start date, and only a certain amount of people each day are allowed to start. If the day you want to start is full, you have to pick another day, I would make a fee at the sign up time, nothing big.... 100 or 150, just enough so only serious people will sign up.... and lets be honest if you cant come up with 100 or 150 bucks, you more then likely don't need to me attempting a thru ( I never like the idea of a lottery, you could wait years, or never get it)

[soilman]

I love the AT. But I feel the ATC endless promotions has created most of the problems because they do have as a mission increasing their membership rolls in a never ending upward spiral, without end. Overuse is where we are. End the AT at Abol Bridge and keep the dogs and the parties outside of Baxter.

I disagree with your assessment. I think if one would survey thru hikers, one would find very few are ATC members. Some probably never heard of the ATC. My guess is that most supporters of the trail have not thru hiked.

[MuddyWaters]

My impression, possibly incorrect, is that the ATC has been actively promoting the trail without limitations in mind. Use, and popularity, mean money and growth. Possibly more federal $ from NPS.

What seems clear, is BSP is close to capacity for AT thru hikers and is getting tired of their behaviors. Keep in mind that section hikers are about as large # as thrus.

What would seem to need to happen, is similar the Whitney zone management in SEKI. Limited permits are available for a mix of dayhikers, and thruhikers.

ATC would issues start dates, locations , with permits. Not all starts are from springer. Those that start up trail simply have to finish up a few miles afterwards. The permit also entitles you to enter BSP and summit Katahdin within a window of time you choose when receive petmit. The numbers for BSP are agreed upon and limited to what BSP wants.

[Connie]

I didn't lecture anyone. I think I made the point, I didn't speak to anyone about how they did things. I was not there to "police" anything. I absolutely did not confront anyone. That was not my role. My role was only to be there. That is what I was asked to do.

I did hike around, and, explore a bit in the woods.

Fetch water. I looked like everyone else there.

I think "lecturing" comes about, when the campground "host" has been in the same location season after season, and, gets the idea "they" live there. I have seen that, in forest service and national park service campground "hosts".

I don't camp there. It is "like" camping in someone else's backyard. Uncomfortable!

I don't like the term campground host, and, I do not recommend it.

I was paid nothing. It was fun, camping thru an entire Winter, in Montana.

Try it! Try it all season, any season, on the AT.

If the AT needs a deterrant to damage, vandalism, and littering, maybe you can camp at or alongside a shelter for a season.

I think there are individuals who would like to "test" their mettle and their gear for a season.

Maybe not? Maybe 1 month?

[pyroman53]

what the AT needs in first 300 miles or so for 2 months is a caretaker (babysitter) at every shelter, more privies at each shelter and all fire pits destroyed at shelters. NO FIRES ALLOWED.

Yes. It seems the problem relates to impact, not of sheer numbers since non-thrus outnumber the thrus by huge numbers, but the impact of large GROUPS of thrus. Thus, designing the first few hundred miles to accomodate these groups while still protecting the environment should be the key. In addition to LW's ideas, I suggest thinning the forest areas surrounding the most popular and evionmentally "hardy" sites to make the forest more healthy and able to withstand the impacts (and since I am a forester I assure you this will help) and also to allow the creation of more tenting sites in environmentally sound spots. This way, we don't have crappy tentsites clumped close to the shelters and/or water, on slopes, near water and sensitve areas, but we have tent sites that are dispersed in such a way that improves the experience and lessens the impacts.

We might not fix the experiential effect of huge numbers but we can lessen the environmental effects. If the experience begins to suck, maybe less will come and more will pursue alternate styles of thrus.

[Lauriep]

Since it has come up, I'll just mention that ATC has 40,000 plus members. There are an estimated 2-3 million trail users. In the last year or two, about 25% of each year's crop of thru-hikers have been ATC members.

[Dwill1000]

The unfortunate truth is that with 8+ billion humans on it the more popular places on this Earth are being loved to death. Judge it as you will, this is simply the way it has come to be. The population pressure on the AT is not unique. Just go to Yosemite or Yellowstone in the Summer, or to any suburban mall on any weekend and experience it for yourself. This problem discussed in this thread has no easy or simple or, in my opinion, attainable solution (that I'm willing to discuss here, anyway).

That said, as I plan my AT thru-hike to begin in March of 2015, does this mean I throw in the towel and cede to the others who vie for this experience? I would undertake this journey with respect for the environment and of those around me. Is my opportunity to have this experience going to be thwarted by those who do not? I read the letter from Baxter to the ATC and sympathize with their situation. Yes, yes, yes, I am of the 'older' generation and accordingly I tend to judge disrespect to the environment and to others by large groups of younger hikers harshly. Why don't people just frigging behave themselves?

I'm having a real crisis now about going ahead with my AT hike.

Damn!

[Tipi Walter]

The unfortunate truth is that with 8+ billion humans on it the more popular places on this Earth are being loved to death. Judge it as you will, this is simply the way it has come to be. The population pressure on the AT is not unique. Just go to Yosemite or Yellowstone in the Summer, or to any suburban mall on any weekend and experience it for yourself. This problem discussed in this thread has no easy or simple or, in my opinion, attainable solution (that I'm willing to discuss here, anyway).

Damn!

It's too easy to love a place to death when you build roads into the very heart of these places, like in Yellowstone. Or the Cades Cove Motor Loop. Fat Americans are addicted to rolling and the park service bends over backwards to accommodate these folks. The misguided human choice to build these roads can be changed by the human choice to close these roads. The farther humans have to walk, the less they will love a place to death.

Knowing our population is skyrocketing, it's vital we close more roads and have a Park policy to not encourage rolling access to the last of our wild places.

[Dwill1000]

Yes, I agree 100%, Tipi Walter. Preservation of wilderness is essential and lack of roads is a major step.

I've read that the average Yosemite and/or Yellowstone visitor never gets more than 200 feet from their car. I believe autos should be banned from both places - and perhaps many others.

[Coffee]

Yes, I agree 100%, Tipi Walter. Preservation of wilderness is essential and lack of roads is a major step.

I've read that the average Yosemite and/or Yellowstone visitor never gets more than 200 feet from their car. I believe autos should be banned from both places - and perhaps many others.

And this will be quickly followed by a complete collapse in support for funding the NPS, and probably with the next election a huge backlash which may include privatizing public lands. Do not expect the public at large to support the priorities of backpackers if they cannot also have reasonable access to public lands. Some sensible balance is needed.

[squeezebox]

I said on a parallel thread that if permits happen it should include an online ed course, inc test to prove you read it. and a fee that would go to new shelters etc
The AT is not a 6 month Frat party, a few people think it is.

[Tipi Walter]

And this will be quickly followed by a complete collapse in support for funding the NPS, and probably with the next election a huge backlash which may include privatizing public lands. Do not expect the public at large to support the priorities of backpackers if they cannot also have reasonable access to public lands. Some sensible balance is needed.

Consciousness must change. As so-called "stewards" to our public lands, forest officials must set the tone for rolling access to our last remaining wild lands. The GSMNP has the worst air pollution of any park in the US and as bad as the air in Los Angeles and yet the forest officials WILL NOT stop automobile and motorcycle traffic thru the park. The rolling public couch potatoes may want full free access to the Park and yet it's the responsibility of the officials to wake up and stop this madness. Or at least charge each car coming in 20 bucks for the privilege.

But so far it's been free open season for cars in the Park which reflects our century-old love affair with rolling and the need for gas huffing. I believe in the future forest officials will put a real stop to this car addiction.

[Coffee]

I believe in the future forest officials will put a real stop to this car addiction.

I can't see that happening at all. A good example is Yosemite Valley. For decades, there has been talk of implementing a shuttle only system for the valley. This has gone nowhere. I remember talk of this during my earliest visits to the park as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s. It was said that a car-less Yosemite Valley was inevitable. But it won't happen. There isn't even a restriction on the number of cars that can enter what is essentially a giant cul-de-sac in one of the most spectacular places on earth. Obviously if Yosemite Valley was pristine today and a national park was planned, there would be no cars in Yosemite Valley, no lodges, no development whatsoever. Would I enjoy backpacking into a pristine Yosemite Valley like that? Sure. But even John Muir didn't experience that kind of Yosemite. After all he and many others actually lived in the valley. There were houses, services, roads, etc.

[TNhiker]

Fat Americans are addicted to rolling and the park service bends over backwards to accommodate these folks

but, they have just as much right to the parks as skinny backpackers............

[TNhiker]

The GSMNP has the worst air pollution of any park in the US and as bad as the air in Los Angeles and yet the forest officials WILL NOT stop automobile and motorcycle traffic thru the park

the majority of the air pollution that is in and around the Park comes from other places.....

like the coal fired power plants that surround us.....

cutting motorized travel through the park will do little to reduce the air pollution........

[rafe]

I can't see that happening at all. A good example is Yosemite Valley. For decades, there has been talk of implementing a shuttle only system for the valley. This has gone nowhere.

When I visited Zion NP years ago they had a shuttle system there. No cars were allowed in the park, all travel was by foot or by shuttle. Did they undo that system? If so, I can't imagine why... it seemed to work well enough.

[Coffee]

When I visited Zion NP years ago they had a shuttle system there. No cars were allowed in the park, all travel was by foot or by shuttle. Did they undo that system? If so, I can't imagine why... it seemed to work well enough.

Zion had that system when I was there about a decade ago (2005 I believe). However, since I had a reservation at the Zion Lodge, I was permitted to drive my vehicle into the restricted area. And not just to go to and from the lodge, but anywhere on the loop. I did use the shuttle system while inside the loop, however, since it seemed pointless to drive around. This was not a backpacking trip. I stayed at the lodge and day hiked.

I don't see this happening in Yosemite Valley. The scale of the shuttle system would be much larger and the number of lodging and other amenities in the valley is far greater. If Yosemite had a shuttle system but exempted those with lodging reservations, you would just create two classes of park visitors - those who go to lodges and those who do not. And I don't see the politics of the situation herding Ahwahnee guests from their Mercedes SUVs into a shuttle bus anytime soon either.